Revisiting the “High-Low” Concept of Training: Defining and Refining a Proven Approach to Speed Development

Derek M. Hansen - January 2025

As you approach the latter years of your career, you begin to review many of the decisions, philosophies and methodologies that you adopted in your younger years, wondering if you made the right choices and how circumstances could have possibly turned out different.  Did I attend the right schools?  Did I train too hard and fall short of my potential?  Did I choose the right career?  Should I have travelled more?  Am I a good parent?  It certainly is odd that you may find yourself with more questions than answers despite all of your accumulated wisdom and experiences.

The same goes for all of my coaching decisions over the past three decades.  Have I followed the correct philosophies and protocols?  Did I get the results I was hoping for?  As such, I am now reviewing a good deal of the training principles that have formed my approach, including the high-low approach to sprint and speed training that I have put into practice for the past 25 years.

One of the very first infographics I created for Charlie Francis back in 2002 was his description of high, medium and low intensity running speeds and the respective impacts on the development of sprint abilities.  Essentially, Charlie was outlining his philosophy for training sprinters in this graphic and providing an easy means of classifying all of his athletes’ running work.  I still find myself asking questions about these parameters and my application of the principles on a daily basis.

Charlie Francis’ original graphic is shown in Figure 1 with high-intensity running identified as 95-100% of an athlete’s best performance, medium-intensity running covering 75-95% and low-intensity including any velocities below 75%.  Within the diagram, Charlie provided the justifications for these prescriptions, identifying the need to run fast in order to create positive adaptations for speed.  Any performance above 95% ensures high central nervous system activation, maximal recruitment and requires full recovery between reps and sessions.

 

Low intensity running velocities under 75%, on the other hand, work in a more recuperative fashion, improving blood circulation and capillary density, thereby hastening recovery.  Although slower running does not directly enhance speed abilities, the indirect benefit of increased blood circulation and heat production results in enhanced electrical conductivity for more efficient neuromuscular recruitment.  Training volumes at these reduced velocities also involve inherently lower risks of injury and can be accumulated relatively safely.

The medium intensity velocity zones are where Charlie Francis advocated for a minimum of exposure for a number of reasons.  Between 75-85% velocities, he determined that direct adaptations for speed are not accomplished.  However, these speeds are high enough to create significant residual fatigue both peripherally and centrally, as well as an elevated risk for soft-tissue injury.  The non-circulatory nature of medium intensity velocities also means that the recovery process is impaired.  Hence, Charlie would avoid a significant amount of work in this zone when developing his sprinters.

Given these parameters, it would be common to see a weekly microcycle distribution with two to three speed focused days (high intensity) separated by low intensity days to promote recovery as depicted in Figure 2.  This is commonly referred to as a “High-Low” approach to developing speed.  The minimum of 48 hours between high-intensity sessions allows for maximum output achievement within each of those sessions.  Figures 3a and 3b identifies the types of activities that could be placed on respective high and low intensity days for a sprint-based athlete and a team sport athlete in a specific preparation or pre-competitive phase of a training program.

 

 

The specific arrangement of days can be at the discretion of the coach, identifying other potential stressors or commitments, as well as arranging for access to appropriate facilities and equipment for each session.  High intensity days generally require greater supervision and monitoring, whereas low intensity work can often be unsupervised if need be.  In all cases, the arrangement of work should be intended to derive the greatest possible improvements in the desired qualities.  In the case of sprint and speed based athletes, if they are not getting faster, something has to change.  Athletes can have optimal workloads and exceptional technical coaching, but if the work is not arranged properly and they are not recovering adequately, any potential improvements will be diminished.  For athletes that are less able to tolerate three high-intensity sessions per week, two sessions can allow for up to 72 hours between a profound sprint stimulus with greater benefits and reduced risk as illustrated in Figure 4.

 

High intensity days could typically include sprint work, plyometrics, explosive throws, intensive sprint drills and maximal weightlifting activities.  Stacking these activities within the same day has the synergistic effect of providing a supramaximal stimulus that promotes an adaptive response.  Coupled with low intensity work, active recovery and passive rest allows for a supercompensation effect that create a cascade of improvement over weeks, months and training periods.  Figure 5 provides a typical list of activities that fall under the high, medium and low intensity classifications.

 

Low intensity work would include a whole list of activities that could be sustained continually over a relatively long period of time.  Extensive tempo runs, circuit training involving medicine balls, weights or body weight, activities in a swimming pool or steady state aerobic activities are commonly prescribed on low intensity days.  In many cases, these activities can still be perceived as difficult by the athlete, but certainly are recoverable within 24 hours.  As an athlete attains a higher level of physical conditioning over time, maintenance of low intensity activities can feel like a relatively easy task.  However, in the beginning of a training program, when athletes are deconditioned, these protocols may initially feel like they are within the medium intensity training zone.

True medium intensity activities, often within the glycolytic energy system pathway, are not only difficult to tolerate, but also take a significantly greater amount of time for full recovery.  If you have ever experienced the pleasure of running a 400m or 800m race in your youth, you will have a full appreciation of the horrors of medium intensity work.  The array of fatigue, nausea, muscle soreness and vertigo experienced after those races makes seasonal influenza seem like a walk in the park.  While some coaches delight in the overt side effects created by medium intensity work, the elevated and sustained fatigue that results from ongoing work in this zone not only has the ability to dampen speed abilities, but also increases susceptibility to soft-tissue injuries and immune system vulnerability.

The simplicity of the high-low approach for speed training is one of the key benefits of adopting this philosophy.  In fact, adopting a ‘polarized’ approach can be applied to almost any type of training for the same reasons of recovery, variability and disparity.  Your organization of training activities is made easier by simply recognizing the distinct qualities of different training elements and grouping them with other compatible elements.  The simplicity is in the structure, but you can still benefit from both nuance and complexity as you start to explore the greater depths of planning and implementation.  The discussion below highlights some of the finer points of refining and optimizing your high-low training program as seen through the lens of my experiences over the last 25 years.

 

Calibrating Your High and Low Intensity Parameters

Over the decades of implementing a sprint-based high-low training program, I have developed a much better feel for what works practically.  Allowing athletes to self-select intensity zones for themselves can be perilous and stricter guidelines may need to be applied, as well as an accurate means of monitoring intensity and velocity.  Perceived exertion assessments rarely work well when it comes to sprinting and the consequences can result in blunted results and, even worse, injury.

When prescribing velocity zones for speed work and recovery sessions, I found it to be much more effective to have the athletes run slower for their low-intensity work (or tempo runs) in order to prevent excessive fatigue and minimize soft-tissue trauma, thereby accumulating higher volumes of appropriate running.  Speed athletes always want to run fast and believe that pushing up the intensity for any running activity will only result in speed improvement.  It is your job as their coach to educate them on the benefits of staying in their prescribed lane and lowering running velocity on their recovery days.

In Figure 6 below, you can see that I have lowered the output requirements for low intensity running to 70% of best time and lower, as compared with Charlie Francis’ original 75% designation.  In cases where athletes are over-exuberant and have a tendency to run too fast, I will even explicitly tell them to run at 65% output just to make sure we have no over-reaches in the session.  Since there is no value in having them run faster for these recovery workouts, completing the work at lower velocities checks off the recovery boxes in terms of generating enhanced circulation and lowering their risk of injury.  In many cases, simply having them run on a natural grass surface – if available – helps to bring down the intensity of a run significantly.

  

It is also important to note that I have expanded my definition of high-intensity work as it relates to running speed. While Charlie Francis defined high-intensity sprinting as 95% of best time for a running distance or faster, I have widened that window to a 10% band from 90 to 100% of ‘most recent’ best performance over a sprint distance.  The reason for expanding this performance window is multi-faceted.  From a practical point of view, there are many factors that can impede performance, including facility quality and environmental conditions.  Different running surfaces can reduce running velocity, as well as headwinds and lower temperatures (often requiring heavier, more restrictive clothing).  Although the actual velocity of the runs may not be above 95%, the effort, energy and muscle tension required to run above 90% of best time can not only create positive adaptations, but also create residual fatigue that may require 48-72 hours of recovery before the next high-intensity training session.

I have also found that it is beneficial to have athletes run between 90-95% of best time due to its proximity to maximal sprinting, but also the ease at which we can both work on technical goals and increase our number of repetitions and overall volume for the purposes of improving running mechanics.  We are more easily able to ‘hard-wire’ the feeling and experience of sprinting with optimal technique and relaxation.  At these sub-maximal velocities, I can also shave down recovery breaks and fit more work into narrower time windows, particularly in the earlier phases of a training program.  Good repetition is the key to mastery, even if we dial down our intensity by one to five percent.

 

Considerations in GPP

By definition, the General Preparatory Phase of a training program is a progressive introduction of exercise elements that heavily leans on the low-intensity side of the spectrum, at least initially.  The total volume of work in a GPP phase is relatively high, with higher repetition ranges introduced over a broad array of exercises and movements, many of which do not have a direct contribution to enhanced performance, but collectively provide a comprehensive foundation of general fitness and preparedness.  The GPP phase then becomes an opportunity to ‘Load Up’ on a greater number of exercises due to the low-intensity nature of the work and the lowered probability of interference occurring between elements and qualities.  As specificity becomes more of a focus in the latter phases of a program, variability and general fitness components commonly fall to the wayside.  It becomes imperative to hoard these qualities as much as possible in the GPP window of the training program and find simple ways to maintain them.

When it comes to the high-low approach, the GPP phase can be considered to retain more of a ‘flat’ structure with less fluctuations in intensity from day to day.  As shown in Figure 7, there might be a slight difference in intensity from one day to the next, but the general structuring of workouts – with an emphasis on volume and variety – does not allow for sweeping differences in daily intensities.  If you are finding that you have significant differences, it might be considered a red flag that you must correct.  It is not possible to maintain high intensities of work over an extended period of time.  Thus, if you adopt a polarized approach much too early in your program, you may find that athletes begin to plateau much too early and will never realize their potential when it counts in the competitive period.  The desired high peaks of the latter phases of your training and competition periods must be supported with a well-developed low intensity foundation.  Short-changing your GPP development will only hurt you when it truly matters.

  

 

Age Specific Implications for High and Low Intensity Work

Some of the earliest diagrams that I created with Charlie Francis back in 2002 were related to the progression of training over time from early developing athletes to mature elite performers.  It was Charlie’s contention that young beginners did not have the output abilities to generate true central nervous system involvement and related fatigue.  Youth athletes would still be operating at near 100 percent effort – thereby classifying their work as high intensity relative to their effort – but would not necessarily suffer the same CNS adaptations and residual fatigue.  Thus, Figure 8 identifies a spectrum of training years that starts with beginners experiencing a perceived high-intensity effect with everything they do.  Conversely, as an athlete matures and has several years of development behind them, true high intensity elements can be achieved requiring a significant amount of low intensity work to assist with recovery and regeneration.  In this respect, both active and passive recovery – combined with training age – are the primary determinants of high intensity output potential.

  

Another consideration in relation to ageing is that the volume of training must continue to increase in order to elicit ongoing performance improvements.  At a certain point in an athletes career, however, training volume must be reduced in order to intensify higher order training elements for continued performance improvements or, at the very least, maintenance of elite performances.  This concept is illustrated in Figure 9, showing volume peaking until a point of diminishing returns has been achieved.  You will see this with professional athletes taking games off during the regular season,  participating in reduced game minutes or eliminating practice sessions.  Sprint athletes may also participate in fewer regular season competitions in order to improve preparedness and readiness for championship events.

 

 

With regards to the evolution of high and low intensity training distribution over an athletes career, from youth until retirement, we can say that both time and biology necessitate modifications to training intensities for both performance enhancement as well as health preservation.  My own training as a competitive athlete and now a recreational fitness participant reflect these realities.  In Figure 10, we see that true high intensity work expands within a training program as an athlete matures into their twenties.  The combination of high exercise outputs and the ability to recover readily reaches a peak in this decade.  However, as an athlete ages beyond their thirties and into their forties, high intensity outputs are not as easily achievable and the preservation of health requires a shift to a higher proportion of low intensity work in the later stages of a career. 

In my own physical fitness training, I have found that my health in my fifties could only be maintained with a shift to a greater proportion of low intensity work, including steady state aerobic activities and more circuit-oriented resistance training exercise protocols.  While I am still able to sprint and lift heavy weights a few times per week, the overall intensity and volume of that work pales in comparison to what I was able to accomplish in my thirties.  I am acutely aware of my limitations, including an increased susceptibility to muscle and connective tissue injuries, and my training activities are adjusted accordingly.  Acceptance of these realities allows for a much more enjoyable training lifestyle, once you get over the ‘hit’ to your ego.

 

In terms of ageing professional athletes, I remember one specific case where I was assisting Charlie Francis in 2003 and 2004 with the preparation of an off-season training program for a Hall of Fame bound NFL wide receiver.  While one may have thought that Charlie would be preparing a comprehensive elite level sprint program for this professional athlete, who was approaching his mid-thirties, I was surprised with the amount of low intensity work that made up the majority of sessions in the form of tempo runs, medicine ball circuits and weightlifting circuits.  There were some relatively low to moderate volumes of accelerations prescribed two times per week, but Charlie felt that his football specific route running would be his primary source of high intensity work, particularly as they approached training camp.  This athlete was able to play in the NFL for another six years into his late thirties before retiring.  Charlie knew how to manage his training intensity appropriately in order to maintain his level of performance without compromising his health and resiliency.

 

Understanding the Output Requirements in Your Sport and Species

Effectively managing the proportions of high and low intensity work for various athletes in different sports (and position groups within a sport) can be a challenge.  One must have a good working knowledge of the physiological requirements of a particular sport, including the training, practice and competitive requirements.  In my work with Charlie Francis, he established that most of his top male sprinters had 35% of all of their training in the “High” intensity category, while the remaining “Low” intensity work comprised 65% of all training, as shown in Figure 11.  If these athletes attempted to complete a higher proportion of work in the high-intensity zone, it could result in insufficient recovery and significant fatigue that could impair improvement or lead to injury.  However, if low intensity work took up a higher proportion of total training, there would not be enough of a stimulus to elicit speed improvements.  A balance must be achieved between stimulus application and athlete recovery, ultimately resulting in tangible performance advancement.

Different sports, for the most part, have different training requirements when it comes to high-low intensity distributions.  These differences can also be seen within a sport for various position groups.  Sports and sport positions that require repetitive bursts of explosive activity and high rates of force development, particularly with acyclic activities such as weightlifting and throwing, require a higher proportion of high-intensity training.  Conversely, on the opposite end of the spectrum, endurance athletes require higher proportions of continuous, low-intensity training to develop aerobic pathways and improve localized muscular endurance.  Exposure to excessive amounts of high-intensity training can not only impair development of adequate aerobic capacity, but also result in significant injury.

Figure 12 provides a range of high-low distributions over various sports and sport positions.  The extreme ends of the spectrum are obvious, with Olympic weightlifters occupying the high-intensity end and marathon runners leading the low-intensity category.  In the middle, we see a combination of sports that require intermittent speed and power for success in those sports, but also include a healthy proportion of low intensity work to create a foundation of fitness for numerous training sessions per week, as well as a means of hastening recovery through an enhanced circulatory system.  Team sports that have a continuous movement requirement – such as soccer, rugby and ice hockey – must have a larger low intensity training base to support the work capacity needs of these athletes in practice and competition.  While there may be individual variations for athletes within these sports, this guide gives you an approximate proportion upon which to build a comprehensive training program.  As mentioned in my discussion of GPP work requirements and intensity variations, these high-low proportions may also change from phase-to-phase in a training program, particularly in a competitive phase where recovery needs may take priority.

 

Another important consideration, particularly in the case of sprinting athletes, is to factor in their top running speed.  In general, an athlete’s speed capabilities will determine how much training volume they can tolerate before fatigue and injury becomes more prevalent.  This became apparent to me when working with track sprinters – both male and female – and finding out that the female sprinters could tolerate higher sprint volumes than the males.  Prescribing both the males and females the same workout volumes was not providing the best outcomes.  You will see this often with training groups where either the males or females tend to have more success than the other group.  If all of the athletes are following the same program, one of the groups will suffer. 

In general, athletes with higher velocity abilities will require lower volumes of high intensity work than slower athletes.  Thus, if male and female sprinters are training together under the same program, what works for the male sprinters may not be enough volume for the female sprinters to reach their potential.  If the volume for the training program meets the volume needs of the female sprinters, the male sprinters will experience excessive fatigue and may be at higher risk for soft-tissue injury because of their higher running velocities.  Individualization of training volumes is an important factor in both health and performance outcomes.

This phenomenon also holds true for the animal kingdom.  If you monitor the running velocities and volumes of horses and cheetahs, you will find that these animals engage in much lower volumes of high velocity running as compared with human sprinters as illustrated in Figure 13.  My conversations with thoroughbred horse trainers confirms the fact that racehorses rarely hit high velocities in their training, working mostly in the low intensity range with workouts.  The high output capabilities of a racehorse makes high velocity work over significant volumes extremely risky, with tendons highly susceptible to wear-and-tear and injury.  As with the human sprinter, low intensity work helps to improve circulatory mechanisms and hasten recovery, particularly with low circulation tissues such as tendons.

 

In the case of cheetahs, where the top ‘performers’ can hit as high as 75 miles per hour on a pursuit, such a chase may only last 10 to 15 seconds, but require several hours for the animal’s body temperature to return to normal levels.  In addition, the cheetah may not be able to hit those speeds again until several days later when complete recovery has been accomplished, which is critical for regular successful feedings.  GPS tags placed on cheetahs confirm that they rarely run fast, with the remainder of their locomotion confined to roaming around the plains looking for the next potential meal.  This is definitely food for thought for coaches working with athletes with exceptional speed abilities.  Recovery is king and cannot be compromised when looking to shave off tenths and hundredths of seconds.

 

The Danger of Disregarding the Importance of “Low” Intensity Elements

As was mentioned earlier, speed athletes and eager coaches may believe that the only way to improve speed is to pursue more speed.  Adding extra reps and sets of sprint work may seem like the logical solution.  However, speed work must be viewed hand-in-hand with supportive low-intensity training elements with coaches recognizing the interdependence of these two key components of training.

If we refer back to our high-low distributions for various sports, we know that high intensity volumes are closely associated with low intensity volumes.  Thus, if a coach decides that an increase in weekly sprint volumes is required, a corresponding alteration to low intensity volumes must also be incorporated to account for the additional recovery requirements of the program.  This Yin and Yang of sprint training requires that you abide by these rules to maintain health and consistently train at a very high level of performance from week-to-week, month-to-month and year-to-year.  Sustainability of effort over the long term is the real answer to the question of speed.

I am speaking from experience having coached sprinters for almost two decades often relying on trial and error.  The natural tendency is to find more high intensity repetitions in order to work on starts, refine technical elements and create enough of a stimulus to cultivate more speed.  The pitfall of blindly chasing after speed without a framework of balance and recovery is a journey fraught with injuries, plateaus and disappointment.  As a good friend of mine, Nikos Apostolopoulos, once told me, “Recovery determines training.  If you work in the opposite direction, you will always lose your way and fall flat.”  Thus, the lesson from experience and the wisdom of those that came before me is to start all of my planning from the low intensity side of the equation (or as Charlie Francis called it, “From right to left”).  Upgrades to low intensity components of the training program are made with the intent of ‘creating space’ for both volume and intensity on the high intensity side.  In this sense, speed training is counter-intuitively low intensity dependent.

Additionally, longer, slow endurance work has commonly been demonized by proponents of sprint training, citing the need for specificity and the fear of fast twitch muscle fibers mysteriously being converted to undesirable oxidative Type I fibers.  I have even heard stories of Olympic weightlifters and shot putters avoiding medium to long walks to find a lunch or dinner spot on competition trips with the assumption that their power and explosive qualities would be depleted.  Experience has shown me that these fears are unfounded, particularly if the work is dispensed in the correct amounts and maintained in an appropriate low intensity zone. 

In the case of low intensity running, the work can be broken down into manageable segments as it is done in extensive tempo running and carried out on relatively forgiving surfaces such as a natural grass field.  For larger American football or basketball players, these running segments can be as short as 25 to 50 yards in length, interspersed with short walking recoveries.  The work can also be successfully carried out on treadmills, stationary bikes and elliptical trainers, as well as in a swimming pool.  When properly dispensed, low intensity work can easily be inserted into the training program of a speed and power athlete, without disrupting fast twitch fiber or detraining alactic abilities.  If you are training the correct proportion of high intensity work in parallel with your low intensity program, the two ends of the spectrum work synergistically to build a more resilient athlete while maintaining desired qualities.

 

Utilizing the “Warm-Up” Period Effectively to Include Both High and Low Intensity Activity Benefits

It is no secret that athletes are finding it more difficult to fit in proper training periods, phases, microcycles and sessions in a world that is heavily emphasizing the need for athletes to compete more and more.  Whether it is professional leagues looking to add more games to increase revenues, college sport organizations looking to legitimize their post season process or youth sports wanting to make more revenues off of club tournaments, club practices and specialty camps, less time is available for properly sustained and accumulated training.  Thus, performance coaches must become more skilled at fitting ten pounds of potatoes into a five pound sack.

I have advised many teams to organize their warm-up periods as a means of building in key training objectives.  By definition, a warm-up should include both low and high intensity components, working progressively from low to high.  However, I have seen the traditional warm-up routine go from being an integral portion of the workout session to a diluted rehearsal of half-hearted exercises designed to simulate sport specific movements.  The warm-up, first and foremost, should warm up the athlete’s body, increasing heart rate, raising core body temperature, improving suppleness and enhancing neuromuscular pathways.  A low-intensity to high-intensity build-up makes the most sense from the point of view of enhancing readiness, but also training key physiological qualities desired for athletic performance.  Exercise selection can be left up to the coach, but increasing both heart rate and including activities that involve high force production and higher movement velocities must be part of the progression.

Figure 14 provides an illustration of some of the key components of a comprehensive warm-up in a typical sequence.  The intensity of work gradually builds over the duration of the warm-up period, moving from general work to more specific movements.  The progression of work moves from low intensity work to high intensity activities.  If the warm-up period is afforded adequate time in order to carry out these activities and this warm-up is carried out over daily training and competition activities throughout a season or year, there is potential for the accumulation of this work to either maintain or build physical qualities.  In situations where sport teams have had off-season periods minimized and a shorter runway is provided to physically prepare for their season, in-season physical preparation can be supplemented by work dispensed in a warm-up period.  While this is not an ideal solution, it does provide an opportunity to inject both low and high intensity stimuli on a consistent basis.

 

At the beginning of a season, the warm-up emphasis may be directed towards general conditioning qualities, assuming the athletes are lacking foundational fitness.  Once these low-intensity qualities have been established and consolidated, general warm-up requirements can be achieved much earlier in the routine providing more space in the session of inclusion of sprint repetitions and explosive activities.  Even if these high-intensity activities are capped at 90-95% of maximum output, training effects can still be readily achieved with reduced risk.  Athletes will be more than equipped to handle competition requirements.  If this level of commitment to a comprehensive warm-up can be achieved throughout a season, coaches and athletes can be rest assured that they will be in a better position to compete and stay healthy into a post-season period.

 

Weight Room Contributions to Consider

While much of the discussion around high-low splits for sprinting and running components are commonly used as examples in a polarized programming approach, the low intensity contribution of gym activities can often be overlooked.  Circuit training in a gym setting can be viewed as a valuable contributor to the low intensity end of the training spectrum.  A circuit-based approach can allow for the inclusion of many different movements and, if performed in relatively rapid succession, can elevate heart rate and satisfy the circulatory requirements for enhanced recovery.

The actual loads in a circuit-based approach need not be significant.  Body weight exercises may be an adequate low intensity stimulus when performed over higher repetition ranges with short recovery periods.  Resistance can be added in the form of dumbbells, kettlebells, light barbells or elastic bands.  The use of medicine ball passes and throws – whether with a partner or against a wall – are a great recuperative activity due to the flowing, rhythmic nature of the movements.  While there is always the tendency to want to make these activities more difficult, with athletes grinding through the circuits, there is nothing wrong with lowering expectations and simply going through the motions.  I have learned over time that it is better to extend the duration of work and keep the intensity low, rather than trying to save time  rushing through repetitions.

The other important consideration when choosing the weight room as an option is to consider the value of variability of work.  If I decide to increase sprint volumes during a training phase but I am concerned about the increased wear and tear created by more foot impacts when expanding the amount of low intensity running being prescribed, I can look to other training activities as a means of expanding low intensity volumes in an effort to balance the program.  Adding in more dumbbell circuits or medicine ball passes on low-intensity training days can fill gaps in the program.  A coach can also reduce high intensity lifting volumes to make room for expanded sprint loads, as heavy lifting and high speed running often do not mix well.

 

Adjustments can and should be made throughout the entire program to calibrate high-low ratios to fit the circumstances of the athlete.  A commonly referenced diagram that I created with Charlie Francis over 20 years ago is illustrated in Figure 15 where we listed numerous training activities and exercises over a spectrum of motor unit involvement.  On the left side of the diagram are extremely intense activities such as sprinting, explosive throws and dynamic weightlifting movements.  On the right side of the diagram we included isolated weightlifting exercises commonly used in bodybuilding.  While many coaches will fall in love with the left side of the diagram, there is merit in also programming the less intense exercises as a means of balancing the intensity requirements of an athlete.  Knowing when to turn down the intensity is just as important as knowing when to turn it up.

 

Temperature and Weather Conditions

It must also be stated that there are many situations that we cannot control as coaches.  Factors outside of our influence always come into play, and we must be flexible in our approach to coaching and managing our athletes.  One of the key factors that is outside of our control is weather.  Having coached in Canada for most of my life, making adjustments to outdoor environmental conditions became a skill in itself.  Some people like to refer to it as ‘agile periodization’ where you are making necessary adjustments on the fly, but I simply refer to it as good coaching.  Knowing when to hold up and knowing when to fold up is not simply a line from an oldies country song, but a necessary skill set when dealing with changing environmental conditions.

On a broader scale, knowing that you have to deal with cold, wet and snowy conditions for certain months of the year will necessitate the management of both training and facilities.  If you have access to an indoor training facility that allows for moderate length sprints, you may be able to continue your speed work unabated.  If you do not have an adequate indoor training option, then running workouts must be altered to fit the conditions.  Thus, your outdoor runs may be longer and slower, accumulating some mileage at medium to low intensity velocities to avoid soft-tissue injury.  Knowing that you are now missing key high intensity work due to weather conditions, your indoor options may need to shift to work in smaller spaces that may only accommodate short starts, high intensity drills, plyometric jumps, explosive throws and maximal explosive weightlifting efforts.  The totality of this work should comprise at least one-third of all of your work during the inclement weather phase.  Once the poor weather lifts, you can gradually resume your regular sprint work outdoors, knowing that you have had adequate exposure to various sources of high intensity work.

On the low intensity side, outdoor running may have to shift to treadmill runs, stationary bicycle workouts and deep water running intervals.  Such cyclical activities will help drive circulation more effectively, but may take more time per session to provide an equivalent benefit as your regular tempo running sessions.  The same might be said for hot weather climates.  Speed work may thrive in extremely hot temperature locations, but low intensity work may need to be carried out in climate controlled facilities where athletes are not at risk of suffering from heat stroke, extreme fatigue and dehydration.  And, because hot weather climates may allow athletes to run faster more often, an adequate volume of low intensity work must be present in the weekly program to help hasten recovery.  Understanding how to effectively manipulate your exercise selection at different intensities under different conditions makes you a much more effective coach because of your ability to sustain training without interruption.  A seamless approach to dynamically managing intensity ratios is one of the best tools you can have in your toolbox.

 

Concluding Remarks

I am not lying when I say that this could easily have been – at minimum – a 50 to 100 page manual for coaches (something that I should probably work towards).  I have tried to touch on the more practical points while leaving breadcrumbs for coaches to enter a journey of self-discovery.  Learning by doing while embracing trial and error is the best teacher.  Yet there are so many nuances of manipulating and managing a training program based on intensity zones.  And, while you are encouraged to work around the edges, only stimulating the high and low intensity zones, there are times when it is not only necessary, but also educational, to dip into the medium zone for specific instances.  If you have managed your high-low program effectively over a relatively long period of time, you will find that your athletes will do just fine when exposed to medium intensity scenarios in competition because of their well-developed anaerobic and aerobic systems.

The trap that I do not want coaches to fall into is the ‘fear of missing out.’  FOMO is the biggest threat to proper coaching education.  In a world where there are ‘influencers’ and ‘followers’, there is something to be said for following your own instincts and staying on course, ideally under the supervision of an experienced mentor coach.  It is so easy to be influenced by something that looks fancy, edgy and innovative.  The boring reality of developing high and low intensity qualities over months, years and beyond may not look sexy on a 30 second reel.  However, I guarantee you that you will have sustainable results that put you in a position of ongoing improvement and success. 

In a world where dopamine responses and instant gratification get far too much credit, I am on a personal quest to make persistent focus and delayed gratification great again.  As it stands now, using a high-low intensity management approach as my starting point has provided me with the best combination of a simple framework and program flexibility to accomplish the goals that have been set for my athletes.  If you are not currently operating under this type of approach, it might we worth your while to trial it with a sub-group of athletes for a block of training to see how they respond, and chalk it up to research and development.  I look forward to hearing more about your findings.

  

Close

50% Complete

Two Step

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.